create_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a write operation without mentioning side effects, validations, required parent context, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool, though it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It omits essential context such as the requirement to provide either a project_id or epic_id, return value expectations, and how this task fits into the broader workflow (e.g., epics, projects).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., project_id required if epic_id absent).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new task' clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_epic. However, it is extremely minimal and adds no detail beyond the tool's name, so it does not fully leverage the opportunity to specify scope or context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_next_task or create_epic. The description does not mention prerequisites like needing a project_id or epic_id, which are critical for correct usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.